Firearm in company owned vehicle.

[seldon14]

I know Indiana has a law to protect our right to keep a firearm locked in our vehicle while at work, but what about a company owned vehicle? I found this exert from an article, but it was kind of old. Any one know of any updates on this?

Weapons in company-owned vehicles are another area that the Indiana General Assembly chose not to address. In contrast, Arizona law explicitly allows employers to prohibit the storage of firearms in company-owned vehicles under all circumstances. General principles of property law suggest that an Indiana employer may continue to control the contents of its own vehicles, regardless of whether employees have primary responsibility for storing and maintaining such vehicles. However, the same principles would have suggested that an employer should be allowed to exclude all weapons of any kind from its premises. Simply put, the new law does not define the phrase "employee's vehicle," and it creates an ambiguity by using the phrase "employee's vehicle" and the phrase "employee's personal vehicle" at different places within the statutory text. Accordingly, an employer who issues vehicles to specific employees for their use may find itself as the test case if it takes a strong stand with a policy banning firearms and ammunition from the trunks, glove compartments, and otherwise obscured places in locked company-owned vehicles that it has issued to employees.

 

[patience0830]

I'm guessing it's the bosses car and he can tell you not to have weapons in it if he wants.

Somebody else will be along directly with a different answer, prolly.

 

[seldon14]

I'm guessing it's the bosses car and he can tell you not to have weapons in it if he wants.

Somebody else will be along directly with a different answer, prolly.

That's what I'm thinking is probably the case, but figured it never hurt to ask.

 

[HoughMade]

Agreed. If there is not a law limiting the employer's ability to restrict weapons, the employer can have a rule against it. Does he?

 

[Jack Burton]

Your vehicle is considered an extension of your personal space which is why the law was passed.

Someone else's vehicle is considered an extension of their personal space. Their rules apply.

 

[daddymikey1975]

Your vehicle is considered an extension of your personal space which is why the law was passed.

Someone else's vehicle is considered an extension of their personal space. Their rules apply.

Just to stir up some debate (because this is an interesting topic for me).. if an officer pulls me over in my company demo (or company supplied vehicle) and the officer asks me if he can search "the" car.. do I have any constitutional protection against a search without warrant?

Must I call my employer to ask my employer if it's ok to the officer to search "the" car ?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

Just curious, not trying to start an argument.. If there was weed in the car, would it be construed to be "my" weed even though it's the boss' car? Simply by driving "the" car, it prevents me from being armed at the gas station or McDonald's (before work) because I'm driving "the" car.. see how this presents an odd situation ?

Maybe Guy or the other members that are attorneys can help shed some light on this because I'm very curious.

 

[CathyInBlue]

IC 35-47-2-1(d) This section may be not construed:
[...]
(2) to allow a person to adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that:
(A) prohibits; or
(B) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle, unless the person's adoption or enforcement of the ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule is allowed under IC 34-28-7-2(b); or
[...]

IC 34-28-7-2
Regulation of employees' firearms and ammunition by employers
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
(1) prohibits; or
(2) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. These regulations envision you keeping your weapon in your own private vehicle. The employer is not prohibitted by any statute from banning weapons in company owned vehicles. Should they so ban them and you are caught with your weapon stored in a company owned vehicle, even if such storage is otherwise in accordance with the above statutes, you are not protected from adverse action under the handgun/firearm laws of the state of Indiana.


A gray area I could see is if it's a company owned vehicle that is "assigned" to the exclusive use of a particular employee as part of their annual compensation package. That would seem legally identical to a lease, in which case it would be considered the employee's private vehicle for purposes of these statutes, even though the company holds the title.

 

[seldon14]

Seems pretty straight forward to me. These regulations envision you keeping your weapon in your own private vehicle. The employer is not prohibitted by any statute from banning weapons in company owned vehicles. Should they so ban them and you are caught with your weapon stored in a company owned vehicle, even if such storage is otherwise in accordance with the above statutes, you are not protected from adverse action under the handgun/firearm laws of the state of Indiana.


A gray area I could see is if it's a company owned vehicle that is "assigned" to the exclusive use of a particular employee as part of their annual compensation package. That would seem legally identical to a lease, in which case it would be considered the employee's private vehicle for purposes of these statutes, even though the company holds the title.

For my purposes this vehicle would be used exclusively by one employee, driven home each night, and then back to work each morning. The car could theoretically be used for personal use, but the user would have to pay the company mileage.

 

[Jack Burton]

Just to stir up some debate (because this is an interesting topic for me).. if an officer pulls me over in my company demo (or company supplied vehicle) and the officer asks me if he can search "the" car.. do I have any constitutional protection against a search without warrant?

Must I call my employer to ask my employer if it's ok to the officer to search "the" car ?



Just curious, not trying to start an argument.. If there was weed in the car, would it be construed to be "my" weed even though it's the boss' car? Simply by driving "the" car, it prevents me from being armed at the gas station or McDonald's (before work) because I'm driving "the" car.. see how this presents an odd situation ?

Maybe Guy or the other members that are attorneys can help shed some light on this because I'm very curious.

I am not a lawyer but there is the legal concept that a person acts as an "agent" of the company. There still must be a formal approval for a search (assuming no reasonable suspicion, of course) and if you don't give it then the police can certainly go to the vehicle owner and seek it. You do have the power to deny it by simply not giving it.

As far as what the officer may find in there that can be attributable to you personally, that is a good question. The normal rule as I understand it is if it is in your car, you own it. This is why anyone who is driving a used car, or a car that has ever had anyone in it but themselves and their 90 year old grandma should never give permission to search. You just don't know what has been left behind by others even if you are pure as snow.

this reminds me of when I was 18 and borrowed the bosses car to make a bank deposit run. I knew he was into selling drugs as a sideline so I was a little curioius as to what was in the glove compartment. I opened it up and there was a huge baggie full of weed, and a nice Smith and Wesson. Of course I had to coonfinger it all over.

I spent the next ten years wondering if I would ever get busted for murder or something if they found my prints on a gun that was used in a bad drug deal.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Then it sounds like a quasi-lease arrangement to me. Even private leases can have provisions for undue use of the vehicle, racking up more mileage than the leasor anticipates the leasee putting on it.

It also sounds like the kind of prickly situation that calls for the paid opinions of a professional lawyer, not a bunch of legal beagles on a web forum.

Good luck in getting the answer you want.

 

[newguy]

i carry when i go on the road even though i'm not supposed to or so they say. ive never recieved anyhing in wrighting.

 

[Dead Duck]

You could always get a job driving an armored car.

Problem solved!

 

[CathyInBlue]

You just don't know what has been left behind by others even if you are pure as Columbian Mountain snow.

FTFY

 

[pokersamurai]

I know Indiana has a law to protect our right to keep a firearm locked in our vehicle while at work, but what about a company owned vehicle? I found this exert from an article, but it was kind of old. Any one know of any updates on this?

The best solution to this problem is to just keep the gun concealed on your person while you're at work (which is definitely legal).

I don't understand why anyone would want to leave their firearm unattended in someone else's car. Even if legal, to me that's just asking for problems.

 

[HavokCycle]

The best solution to this problem is to just keep the gun concealed on your person while you're at work (which is definitely legal).

correct me if i'm wrong but employers can still ban firearms on your person. i'm aware that according to IC i can now keep it in my vehicle but that is different than business premises, as its private property.
legal? yes. grounds for termination? also yes, as I understand it.

 

[Pinchaser]

Your company-owned vehicle is also company-owned property. It's no different than their business premise. They can and should decide if you can or cannot carry a gun while in their vehicle. It's their property.

 

[pokersamurai]

correct me if i'm wrong but employers can still ban firearms on your person. i'm aware that according to IC i can now keep it in my vehicle but that is different than business premises, as its private property.
legal? yes. grounds for termination? also yes, as I understand it.

Your right, if you carry a firearm on company owned property against owners wishes (although legal) is grounds for termination.

I've worked for employers who ban firearms on their property, in which case I still had a J-frame or LCP in my pocket everyday. It's legal and it's not like your employer can search you. So as long as you don't tell anyone you're carrying your employer should never know. (I've done it for years and no-one's ever found out.)

People just need to make a decision what is more important to them, their jobs or potentially their lives.

 

[Chuck26287]

Add one more element to the equation... I have an assigned company car, and it's against company policy to have firearms in it. I am required to use a company car for my work duties (field service), but I am also required to pay $200/month (payroll deduction) towards the personal use "benefit". I do not have the option to not use it for personal use and keep the $200. If I go beyond a certain amount of personal use mileage (reported monthly) I get an end of year deduction for personal usage.

I'm really not clear on exactly what the $200/month is going toward... vehicle operational cost, or taxation on my benefit from the personal use. If $200 is the tax, that's got to be a pretty big "benefit", meaning a LOT of personal miles.

I've often wondered if paying a fee for the personal use of a company vehicle would affect the company's ability to enforce their policy on me during my personal use, especially if I do not have the option of declining the personal use of the vehicle. I just play it better safe than sorry.

 

[HavokCycle]

Add one more element to the equation... I have an assigned company car, and it's against company policy to have firearms in it. I am required to use a company car for my work duties (field service), but I am also required to pay $200/month (payroll deduction) towards the personal use "benefit". I do not have the option to not use it for personal use and keep the $200. If I go beyond a certain amount of personal use mileage (reported monthly) I get an end of year deduction for personal usage.

I'm really not clear on exactly what the $200/month is going toward... vehicle operational cost, or taxation on my benefit from the personal use. If $200 is the tax, that's got to be a pretty big "benefit", meaning a LOT of personal miles.

I've often wondered if paying a fee for the personal use of a company vehicle would affect the company's ability to enforce their policy on me during my personal use, especially if I do not have the option of declining the personal use of the vehicle. I just play it better safe than sorry.

my gut says you'd tie that one up in court with people that have spent a lot more money on lawyers than you have, and lose. their name on title, their rules.

 

[inccwchris]

Just to stir up some debate (because this is an interesting topic for me).. if an officer pulls me over in my company demo (or company supplied vehicle) and the officer asks me if he can search "the" car.. do I have any constitutional protection against a search without warrant?

Must I call my employer to ask my employer if it's ok to the officer to search "the" car ?


Technically speaking, no you do not as far as I understand. In order to preform a search an officer needs one of three things. Permission to search from the TRUE owner of the property, a search warrant, or exigent circumstance. All three of those require probable cause to get and hold them up in court but technically no you would not have recourse because you are not the TRUE owner of the car. Someone correct me if I am wrong.